scholarly journals COMPARATIVE TRANSNATIONAL CIVIL PROCEDURE: EXCLUSIVE AND EXORBITANT CIVIL JURISDICTION IN BRAZIL, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND EUROPEAN UNION

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (54) ◽  
pp. 73
Author(s):  
Augusto Jaeger JUNIOR ◽  
Nicole Rinaldi de BARCELLOS
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
North American ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Best Interest ◽  
Exclusive Jurisdiction ◽  
Transnational Justice ◽  
Special Rules

ABSTRACTThis study aims to explore the rules on the jurisdiction of courts in the Brazilian, North-American and European Union legal systems, and their reasonableness, in order to determine if they contain characteristics of exorbitance and exclusivity in the exercise of jurisdiction, and to compare them. Legislators in different legal orders tend to enact norms with comprehensive grounds for jurisdiction, with the intention of protection of their own interests, which are not always consistent with the best interest of the parties or the proximity of the case with the forum. To develop the mentioned objectives, the study was divided into two parts. In the first section, the general and special rules of jurisdiction in the Brazilian, North-American and European Union legal systems are explored. In the second section, the exorbitance and exclusivity of jurisdiction are analyzed, in order to propose a comparison between the three systems. In the study, we identified exorbitant and exclusive jurisdiction rules in all legal systems analyzed, which have negative consequences on the access to justice of individuals. Rules on jurisdiction should be instruments for the promotion of transnational justice and therefore exorbitant and exclusive rules on jurisdiction should be limited.KEYWORDS:International civil procedure; International civil jurisdiction; Reasonable jurisdiction; Exclusive and exorbitant civil jurisdiction. RESUMO Este estudo pretende explorar as regras de jurisdição internacional nos sistemas jurídicos do Brasil, dos Estados Unidos da América e da União Europeia, e a sua razoabilidade, com fins de desvendar se eles contêm características de exorbitância e exclusividade no exercício da jurisdição, comparando-as. Legisladores em diferentes ordens jurídicas tendem a promulgar normas com amplos fundamentos para jurisdição, com a intenção de proteger seus próprios interesses, que nem sempre são compatíveis com o melhor interesse das partes ou com a proximidade do caso com o foro. Para desenvolver os objetivos propostos, o estudo foi dividido em duas partes. Na primeira seção, são analisadas as regras gerais e especiais de jurisdição dos sistemas jurídicos do Brasil, dos Estados Unidos da América e da União Europeia. Na segunda seção, aborda-se exorbitância e exclusividade da jurisdição, com fins de propor uma comparação entre os três sistemas nesta matéria. Com o estudo, identificamos regras de jurisdição exorbitantes e exclusivas em todos os sistemas legais analisados, que possuem consequências negativas ao acesso à justiça dos indivíduos. As regras sobre a jurisdição devem ser instrumentos para apromoção da justiça transnacional e, portanto, as regras exorbitantes e exclusivas sobre jurisdição devem ser limitadas.PALAVRAS-CHAVE:Processo civil internacional; Jurisdição civil internacional; Jurisdição razoável; Jurisdição civil exclusiva e exorbitante.

scholarly journals SIDE-EFFECTS OF THE GROWING TREND TOWARDS THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF MEDIATION

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 187-221
Author(s):  
Humberto Dalla Pinho
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Mortgage Crisis ◽  
And Diffusion

For some time, Europe, Brazil and the United States have been suffering from the systemic inefficiency of their Courts, with a significant impact on the guarantee of access to justice for their citizens, making alternative dispute resolution (A.D.R.) a constant presence in both civil and common law systems of jurisdiction. The upshot has been the institutionalization of ADRs, taking the form of a routine presence in codes of civil procedure, while their practice is connected to the courts. However, both institutionalization and the obligation to take part in mediation programs before or after starting the suit are exceptional measures, which must be adopted with caution. The experience of the European Union with its Directive, the Brazilian experience of inserting mediation into the project for the new Code of Civil Procedure and the use of mediation to overcome the conflicts arising from the serious mortgage crisis in the U.S.A. will be analyzed in this article, seeking to demonstrate that the progress and diffusion of ADRs does not necessarily entail a breach with their underlying foundation, and particularly with regard to mediation, the loss of its identity, for it to be inserted into the context of access to justice.

Access to Information and Evidence

2021 ◽  
pp. 136-173
Author(s):  
European Law
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Access To Information ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Common ◽  
Law Of Evidence

This chapter explores the provision and testing of evidence, which is central to civil procedure. Effective access to information and evidence are basic tools that ensure access to justice is a real rather than a merely theoretical right. There is a great deal of variety across European jurisdictions in respect of the approach taken to evidence-taking, and particularly to access to relevant information. This is a consequence of a variety of factors: the distinction between the civil law/common law; legal history; and procedural culture, and particularly the distribution of roles between the court, judiciary, and parties. This divergence in approaches to evidence may be the source of difficulties in cross-border litigation. The chapter identifies the common core of the law of evidence and the best, or more convenient, rules, including those related to the management of evidence, in use in European jurisdictions. To do so, it looks at the ALI/UNIDROIT Principles, the IBA Rules of Evidence and of legal instruments addressing the issue of evidence and access to information within the European Union.

Nomophilacy and Beyond

2015 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 281-315
Author(s):  
Giorgio Fabio Colombo
Keyword(s):  
Civil Law ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Civil Litigation ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Stare Decisis ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
Institutional Approach

The issue of how civil law jurisdictions rely on precedents in the absence of a firm stare decisis rule is one of the most debated topics in comparative law. While most studies focus on the convergence of legal systems and/or rely on socio-legal reflections, this paper employs an institutional approach based on the comparison of the supreme courts of Italy and Japan, two civil law countries that share many similarities in history, perceptions of the civil litigation system, and eventual drift towards a quasi-precedential model. The study tries to demonstrate that even when there are no formally binding precedents, technical, procedural rules make supreme courts’ decisions fundamental for the formation of norms. The analysis highlights the different weight each factor (i.e. structure and functioning of the supreme courts, reforms in civil procedure, access to justice) and actor (i.e. judges, scholars) has in the formation and application of precedents in Italy and Japan.

scholarly journals HACIA EL ACCESO TRANSNACIONAL A LA JUSTICIA: UN ANÁLISIS DE LA CONSONANCIA ENTRE LOS PRINCIPIOS TRANSJUS Y EL CÓDIGO DE PROCESO CIVIL BRASILEÑO CPC/2015

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (55) ◽  
pp. 77
Author(s):  
Valesca Raizer Borges MOSCHEN ◽  
Luiza Nogueira BARBOSA
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Current Paper ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Palabras Clave ◽  
Transnational Justice ◽  
Global Access

RESUMENLa fluidez de las fronteras ocasionada por la movilidad de los factores productivos promueve, cada vez más, la transnacionalización de los conflictos. La estructura hermética del derecho procesal civil es puesta en jaque frente a la necesidad de acceso global a la justicia. La armonización del derecho internacional privado, en materia del derecho procesal civil, se vuelve fundamental para la eficacia transfronteriza de derechos. Como instrumento de tal armonización, los principios ASADIP sobre el Acceso Transaccional a la Justicia (TRANSJUS) se insertan en la búsqueda por la promoción de la justicia transnacional efectiva. El actual paper objetiva investigar en qué medida el recién sistema procesal brasileño se compatibiliza con el modelo ASADIP de framework rules. PALABRAS CLAVE: Principios Asadip sobre el acceso trasnacional a la justicia; TRANSJUS; Proceso Civil Internacional; Derecho internacional Privado. ABSTRACTThe fluidity of borders caused by the mobility of productive factors promotes the transnationalization of conflicts. The hermetic structure of civil procedural law is questioned by the need for global access to justice. The harmonization of private international law, in terms of civil procedural law, becomes fundamental for the crossborder effectiveness of rights. As an instrument of such harmonization, the ASADIP principles on Transactional Access to Justice (TRANSJUS) are inserted in the search for the promotion of effective transnational justice. The current paper aims to investigate to what extent the new Brazilian procedural system is compatible with the ASADIP model of framework rules. KEYWORDS: Asadip principles on transnational access to justice; TRANSJUS; International Civil Procedure; Private International Law. RESUMO A fluidez das fronteiras gerada pela mobilidade dos fatores produtivos promove, cada vez mais, a transnacionalização dos conflitos. A estrutura hermética do direito processual é então posta em xeque frente à necessidade de acesso global da justiça. A harmonização do direito internacional privado, em matéria de direito processual civil é fundamental para a eficácia transfronteiriça de direitos. Como instrumento de tal harmonização, os princípios ASADIP sobre o Acesso Transnacional à Justiça (TRANSJUS) encontram-se no caminho de promoção de uma justiça transnacional efetiva. O presente artigo tem como objetivo investigar em que medida o recente sistema processual brasileiro compatibiliza-se com o modelo de framework rules da ASADIP.PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Princípios ASADIP sobre o Acesso Transnacional à Justiça; TRANSJUS; Processo Civil Internacional; Direito Internacional Privado; Direitos processuais fundamentais.

scholarly journals SIDE-EFFECTS OF THE GROWING TREND TOWARDS THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF MEDIATION

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 187-221
Author(s):  
Humberto Dalla Pinho
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Mortgage Crisis ◽  
And Diffusion

For some time, Europe, Brazil and the United States have been suffering from the systemic inefficiency of their Courts, with a significant impact on the guarantee of access to justice for their citizens, making alternative dispute resolution (A.D.R.) a constant presence in both civil and common law systems of jurisdiction. The upshot has been the institutionalization of ADRs, taking the form of a routine presence in codes of civil procedure, while their practice is connected to the courts. However, both institutionalization and the obligation to take part in mediation programs before or after starting the suit are exceptional measures, which must be adopted with caution. The experience of the European Union with its Directive, the Brazilian experience of inserting mediation into the project for the new Code of Civil Procedure and the use of mediation to overcome the conflicts arising from the serious mortgage crisis in the U.S.A. will be analyzed in this article, seeking to demonstrate that the progress and diffusion of ADRs does not necessarily entail a breach with their underlying foundation, and particularly with regard to mediation, the loss of its identity, for it to be inserted into the context of access to justice.

Service and Due Notice of Proceedings

2021 ◽  
pp. 120-135
Author(s):  
European Law
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Special Rules

This chapter addresses the rules on the service of judicial documents for domestic and cross-border cases under the European Rules of Civil Procedure. Sections 1 and 2 of Part VI provide rules which are generally applicable, no matter whether the addressee is domiciled or residing in the forum State or abroad. Section 3 sets out special rules for cross-border cases and distinguishes between cases in which documents must be served on an addressee domiciled within the European Union and cases in which they reside outside the European Union. With respect to service of documents in a cross-border setting, it provides some rules that deviate from the ESR Regulation. Nevertheless, the ESR Regulation is intended to apply to the extent that this part does not provide rules of its own, particularly regarding its provisions on communication and organisational matters.

scholarly journals SIDE-EFFECTS OF THE GROWING TREND TOWARDS THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF MEDIATION

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 187-221
Author(s):  
Humberto Dalla Pinho
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Mortgage Crisis ◽  
And Diffusion

For some time, Europe, Brazil and the United States have been suffering from the systemic inefficiency of their Courts, with a significant impact on the guarantee of access to justice for their citizens, making alternative dispute resolution (A.D.R.) a constant presence in both civil and common law systems of jurisdiction. The upshot has been the institutionalization of ADRs, taking the form of a routine presence in codes of civil procedure, while their practice is connected to the courts. However, both institutionalization and the obligation to take part in mediation programs before or after starting the suit are exceptional measures, which must be adopted with caution. The experience of the European Union with its Directive, the Brazilian experience of inserting mediation into the project for the new Code of Civil Procedure and the use of mediation to overcome the conflicts arising from the serious mortgage crisis in the U.S.A. will be analyzed in this article, seeking to demonstrate that the progress and diffusion of ADRs does not necessarily entail a breach with their underlying foundation, and particularly with regard to mediation, the loss of its identity, for it to be inserted into the context of access to justice.

The Necessity and Ways of Legitimation of Large-scale Private Property in Russia: Raising a Problem

2007 ◽  
pp. 4-26
Author(s):  
G. Yavlinsky
Keyword(s):  
Large Scale ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Specific Nature ◽  
Considerable Part ◽  
Russian People ◽  
National Importance ◽  
Historical Tradition ◽  
Special Rules ◽  
Economic Assets

Results of privatization campaign in 1990’s continue to meet strong opposition from a very considerable part of Russian people and authorities actually refuse to consider the rights of private owners legitimate and not subject to violation. One of the reasons for this, besides historical tradition, is a specific nature of Russian privatization of 1990’s. The article brings to discussion a set of measures aimed at overcoming its negative consequences. While insisting on the need to honor all previous government obligations and commitments, the paper proposes a one-time special tax (windfall tax) to be levied on those who benefited most from privatization deals that were not just and fair, and special rules to be set for the use and sale of economic assets of national importance. The author also considers possible ways to legitimize private property, as well as chances to achieve а broad public consensus on this issue in Russia.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document